solderz, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 12:41 PM, said:
I thought the same thing. The method of placing genes from other plants into currently grown plants, for the benefit of a specific trait, does not pose risk to us or other plants or animals. Does the fact that wheat is more resistant to drought and rust threaten you or your children. Should we warn everyone of the dangers of cacti since they are also resistant to drought? The only reason anyone fears GM foods is ignorance.And without them and their ilk, we could not continue to feed the growing population of our planet. Its always someone that is well fed with no threat of starvation that argues against GM foods.
hblask, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 12:47 PM, said:
Ok, fair enough.Generally speaking, GM foods are foods that take a gene that exists in nature, and transfers it to another plant or animal that exists in nature. The fear that it will turn plants into zombies or whatever because humans forced the transfer has no scientific basis. The gene already existed and already has the potential to do whatever it is that it does. The human body has no way of knowing, when it eats a particular gene, whether that gene was a random mutation from nature or one that was put there by humans. The genome of plants and animals are constantly undergoing mutations, and there is no particular reason to fear a human-induced one (unless it was put there maliciously with the intent to cause harm, of course).A gene that exists in swamp grass to help it endure swamp conditions is no more dangerous just because it was placed in corn that can now endure swampy conditions.As for my position, since it concerns a lot of people, I think it's fair that GM foods be labeled as such so that people can make an informed choice. I'll personally take the cheaper, tastier one, but if people are afraid of zombie tomatoes killing their children, they can stick with the more expensive natural variety.
OK...I certainly agree GM foods are a valuable and much needed alternative to starving due to the decline in available arable land and increased aridity on our dying planet, but...
vbnautilus, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 1:25 PM, said:
I think this is too strongly argued. I think GM foods are probably relatively safe, but the fact that there is no *known* risk does not mean there is no risk. Genetics are complicated. It's certainly possible that placing the gene for drought resistance into wheat could interact somehow with wheat's existing genes to result in something unhealthy, which might not be discovered until people have been eating it for twenty years. Any new food carries risk, and when you are mass producing it and feeding the population with an untested food source its prudent to be suspicious.
I also agree that we really don't know about long term (20+ years) potential effects of eating them...Should that be a reason to stop using them? Not if it causes millions of people to die. but, then again, who are we to change the DNA fabric of the universe? Perhaps all the drought and famine and disease is a way for the Earth to rebalance itself?Call me "for" GM foods, provided some controls are in place and people don't get complacent about the scientific aspects.
vbnautilus, on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009, 1:29 PM, said:
Well that's a bit of a trade-off isn't it... malaria.... cancer... malaria... cancer. This might be harder than the taco/falafel decision.
Are the tacos/falafel prepared with GM foods? Mmmm...super taco!And, no, I'm not skeered of the Zombie Tomato Apocalypse
"We had all the momentum. We were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look west, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark, that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back." —Raoul Duke, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas
"Those are brave men knocking at the door. Let's go and kill them!" - Tyrion Lannister